turboplanner

I think the Darling is bone dry now, saw a photo of a Land Cruiser driving along the bottom.

SA would be thirsty trying to tap the Darling.

Doesn’t SA tap off the Murray at Morgan. Great drinking water; seven hundred thousand cattle can’t be wrong!

The other states seem to be picking up on Queensland’s “If it’s flooded, forget it.

......but one likely to have a head on collision with an innocent family. The CFI usually knows where the bad habits are.

I hope turbs is not in this category of overweight and unfit.

Maybe you could give them all some tips.

That high risk sport of which you speak is considered by many to be 'stupid'.

Part of our risk management includes providing for rescue if needed, by carrying PLB, notifying flight plans, etc.However there are times when an unusual adventure should only be undertaken at one's own risk entirely. I support the idea of signing a 'DNR' equivalent. (Do Not Rescue.)

Just remember......you pay peanuts you get monkeys. Pay the money and have it for years!Vic rye needs heaps of fertilizer ( $400.00 per ton ), will not stand heavy traffic and has a short growing season.

 

Do it once and do it properly.

 

But what would I know I'm only a farmer ?

MDX sure is a mystery, plenty of aviation mysteries old and new with so many stories around them.

I fear that adventure had been outlawed.By 'adventure' I mean the concept of dreaming up and undertaking an unconventional, perhaps unlikely activity/location/journey/whatever. In the old days one started with the dream (even if others considered it stupid), then assessed all risks, then minimised them and got on with it. If it went pear shaped, one accepted their fate without expecting the world to jump to one's rescue. It seems that in our brave new world, we are now expected to take on responsibility for the safety of our potential, perhaps unasked for, rescuers as well as our own risk.If I want a rescue team to be a part of my personal risk control strategy, I think I should have the option to opt in (or opt out) to the rescue process before undertaking my adventures.

What are the rules about boundaries to roads, lanes, travelling stock routes and the like?

The cost of a boundary fence is shared equally between the neighbors usually.

Here's another farm... adjacent to a national park on one paddock.The government doesn't have to contribute a cent to the cost of the fencing of that boundary. So they don't. There are LAWS to that effect.AND if one of the trees on their side falls and damages the fence then they don't have to fix the fence, or contribute a cent towards the cost. They also passed laws to that effect.

 

They have used their unlimited power to be nasty neighbors.

Yep Space, the worst thing our governments have ever done is to send young men to stupid and completely unnecessary deaths in war. Treating some farmers badly pales in comparison.I wish I lived in the nice world that turbs does.But there are 2 misconceptions in turb's posting.

 

The first is that a letter to the rail authority would work. It didn't in this case. The second, is that the farmers are "unfortunates" when they are actually worth millions. But a real stupid way to lose a million is to try and litigate against bottomless pockets like the rail and the government have. Gosh if you win then they just appeal.

There's still no evidence that he ever did anything to help himself, so it's not a fair example to give other people who may be coming up against a big organisation like CASA etc.

You can check the law in relation to flooding If the case was straightforward and the Rail Authority built an embankment across a waterway (or valley where water can flow in a flood etc), and the farmer's paddocks were flooded as a result, and there are no other issues he didn't raise, I would be very surprised if the authority didn't just rectify the drainage on receipt of a letter which provides evidence of the situation before and after the levee bank.

If that fails, I would be even more surprised if the farmer provided evidence of the breach of the applicable act, and the Minister didn't ensure the Authority fixed it.

If all that fails, then you can look at having a judge decide.

Being a straightforward law and an obvious breach, I wouldn't expect the farmer would have a problem having the issue rectified and covering all his costs including crop failures or de-stocking. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not referring to any specifics at all, BUT:

(a) It really doesn't matter if the Authority has billions if you win your case, BUT:

(b) Over the years, I've read thousands of letters from people with a gripe that don't contain a shred of evidence, and/or which contain a few porks about the facts. (I'm not suggesting your farmer mate was one of these, or they hire a lawyer and tell him nothing other than that he has to win the case, or they will not accept his advice, or do some simply legwork to collect evidence.

The (b) people usually tell the story about deep pockets and bad lawyers.

The problem farmers have with their financial status, is that the land may be worth $2 million dollars, but they have to earn enough money to cover the annual working budget - asset rich but cash poor. Their breakeven point is very high, so a dry year/wet year/poor stock sales can send them under, even if they inherited the farm.

I know of this farm north of Adelaide where the railway embankment made a dam and they lost their crops. It is hard to fight a government which makes the rules and appoints the judges. No compensation has been paid or admitted to, but the aerial photo says it all.Not a big percentage of total flooding, but governments using their vast powers to be nasty to ordinary people makes me angry.

Demeter fescue.

I should have gone on to say, that of the group who have them fitted some are of the type that don’t bother with BAK, practice forced landings, think ahead about forced landing sites etc. but just programme themselves to rely on the BRS only and subconscosciously pull activate it when there was a perfectly good forced landing site available. Some of them have finished up half on and half off a roof, or in the upper branches of a tree and it was the drop that killed them, so yes, putting one in is a valid choice.

A BRS is a partial solution; conditions have to be right for it. Take a look st the substantial history of Cirrus arrivals, some worked out well, others killed the occupants, and of those, some would have survived a conventional forced landing.

Good to hear something like this from the Association; matches up with a few crashes and fatalities that I can think of, and is also relevant to quite a few comments made on this forum, so there's potential for some good results.

As they will.

Hi everybody.Thanks so much for the comments of support and encouragement. That's what you get sharing your story with other aviators rather than non-flyers.

What frustrated me yesterday was the local media reporting of our spectacular 'crash'. A local radio channel apparently reported that we had miraculously survived (and I didn't hear this myself) when the aircraft had fallen from the sky or flown into the ground inverted, as shown in the picture! Of course the flip had only occurred at low speed when the wheels stuck in mud at the end of the landing roll. Understandably, we had relatives seriously worried for our lives... Also we were reported to have 'injuries' or 'minor' injuries. We were both unharmed by the incident and I just drove us home after the misadventure. Its unfair how our sport is tarnished by this sensationalism.

 

Anyway gripe over.

 

On the issue of STOL raised by nicephotog, I'd consider my own Murphy Rebel a serious STOL bush aircraft, designed and built for the Canadian outback. Funnily enough, I currently have on order some 29 inch Alaskan bush tyres to be fitted to it. If they had arrived and been fitted before Sunday they almost certainly would have prevented my rollover on landing. However, they weigh 15kg each and if they had been fitted its likely the weight and drag would have compromised that lengthy glide to the clearing we pulled off. We might have dropped into the bush. I'd rather take the roll-over than fly my wife into trees.

 

Have been in touch with the insurers and plans are afoot for the recovery. Its going to be a bit of an adventure getting to the landing site at this time of year and getting the aircraft out.

 

Cheers

 

Alan

Thanks for the information NT; if only everyone would do that; regardless of the cause of the engine failure, a textbook set of actions we cal all learn from.

So its true - RAA is only a subsidiary of CASA - not by virtue of the approved manual reaquired by the various CAO's BUT virtue of the memorandum of agreement which dictates CASA's demands which RAA acquiesce to for a paltry $100,000 (approx as current agreement not available on net). We are really paying twice to be regulated - once though our taxes (income and fuel tax for those who use avgas) and for sustenance of RAA through membership fees etc.Time to make all RAA aircraft experimental by definition (thus absolving CASA of any responsibility see the CASR's) and creating a PPL lite for recreational pilots issued in the same way as PPL. Result is no need for sports aviation bodies as regulators but frees them up to be fierce advocates

Then a group of enthusiasts persuaded CASA to allow them to build their own aircraft, as long as they stuck to paddocks and didn't exceed 300 feet AGL. That kept them away from all GA operations. This was done by giving the AUF some EXEMPTIONS from GA regulations, allowing it to act as a self regulating organisation, which was a popular trend in all sorts of risky activities at that time. Then the aircraft started to get bigger and look more like GA aircraft (Skyfox etc), and some more exemptions were granted, and an administrative cost was added.

That's where is is today; operating under exemptions from CASA regulations, provided certain conditions are met, and for an administrative cost.

If you want an exemption from the GA requirement for mandatory LAME servicing then you have to ensure that the people who are maintaining their own aircraft meet a minimum standard of qualifications.

That's all this thread was about, and the thread shows it's quite a complex subject, and some very good points have been made, which RAA would be well advised to take note of.

"amazing how the wrights could calculate they needed 8 hp."Thank goodness they didn't have to calculate "Wing_Loading" too.spacesailor

My good Macquarie street barrister friend of 25 years says the court system is corrupt, if you are a working stiff you are screwed!!! - The answer is - if you cant push 100's of thousands of dollars into the law firm and the other side can OUT spend you - you loose. 97.7% of the time or worse.Any person off the street on a middle income cannot beat the court system if the other side has a no limit cash spend.to the legal system - ASIC - CASA - TAX DEPT - or any gov dept - can always bankrupt an average person by just grinding them into the ground. Talk about a fair a just system.Prove me wrong your honor.

 

This gentleman did !

 

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

 

File number 2016/1472

But imagine how much HP the Wrights and Charlie Taylor could have extracted from their engine, if they'd had a proper carburettor, a proper magneto, a proper cooling and oiling system, and a decent method to regulate control of the engine!You've got to give Charlie credit, for a bloke who knew nothing about engines, who was essentially a bicycle mechanic, and had only read about the Otto principle - to build a complete working engine from scratch - with only hand tools and a lathe, was a pretty outstanding effort. However, the first engine did seize up, and had to be rebuilt - possibly because they were guessing at operating clearances needed.

I often wonder how his lathe was powered? One would hope it was one of those new-fangled electric-motor-driven lathes, and not a treadle lathe!

 

I have seen nothing about what powered Charlie's workshop - whether it was steam, or whether he actually had electric power.