turboplanner

What nonsense turbs. Just look at the "straightforward" legislation they jailed Hansen on. If it was so straightforward, why did she get off on appeal? And what about the selective way in which targets are chosen? Amazing how the targets are just the same people who threaten the establishment in some way.

When you go into a court case, two lawyers (or legal teams) are adamant their version of events is correct; one wins and one loses.Sometimes afterwards one finds that either his side didn't have a critical piece of information, or something put up by the other side didn't stack up under later scrutiny.

 

Or sometimes the Judge makes a mistake. Or sometimes the charge is incorrect.

 

I spent quite a few years studying the legislation to try to find a legal way of covering my marketing territory by air instead of car, so I've looked over that legislation a lot of times.

 

 

Remember they actually jailed Hansen on trumped up charges. And look what they did to Slipper.More of the same and disgraceful I reckon. I wish I could sack the lot of them.No pun intended Pauline, but this is called a witch hunt.

Anyone going on a witch hunt is only going to find brooms.The legislation is straighforward; he either contravened it or he didn't.

 

 

So the RAA are the first to want paper work and reporting of any infringement (check the ops manual turbo) on what any member is doing, so why do we pay fees, to NOT be notified of the review of the operation of the Pauline Jab as it is OK or not. RAA are the police of RAA before running to big brother.Again some serious questions, by the effectiveness of board that should have answered to us as members, on the operation of the aircraft as it reflects on use as this high media profile operation many months ago, does it not?

CASA is taking the action on a CASA regulation; when you fly in CASA airspace you are subject to CASA regulations.CASA is a Controlling Body, which brings with it legal risks and fights where the government foots the bill.

 

RAA is a Self Administering Body. If CASA succeeds in getting convictions, RAA could then advise shareholders of what happened, why, and how to avoid making the same mistake.

 

 

Here's the old TS3 itself, in a nice suburban setting:

 

 

 

I wonder how this would compare to fuel injection, I'm guessing a lot more effecient

With the advent of common rail fuel injection we can do magic things like electronically programming 8 separate injections during the firing phase for reasons of power/economy/emission.It would be hard to match that now.

 

 

Known universally in Australia as Commer Knockers for very obvious reasons

 

 

A 2 stroke diesel makes sense . The petrol 2 strokes with their transfer ports had to compromise between fuel going straight out the exhaust or not scavenging all the burnt stuff. A diesel avoids this completely. And the 2 stroke has a better power to weight than a 4 stroke.I agree with you space. Those old Commer engines were good.

The GM (Detroit Diesels) were two strokes with a supercharger. This was an ideal combination for trucks, buses, fire engines and boats. Like the TS3 it was lighter than four strokes, and had an excellent durability record. They gave best performance with an Allison Automatic transmission to keep the engines revving hard, producing horsepower, which made them the leader in metropolitan buses, able to accelerate away from bus stops, and fire trucks, where the driver just stood on the accelerator to outrun traffic. While nothing has come remotely close to the howl of a Rolls Royce truck engine the Detroit Diesel variants were a close second. Unfortunately, like the Commer knocker, you could hear them for miles. Drive-by noise limits caused difficulties. Also unfortunately this design required a lot of fuel to produce the goods, which didn’t matter, when fuel was 30 cents a gallon, but then came the fuel crisis, followed by an increase in net excise duty on diesel and they took a massive hit in the market place. On top of that they leaked oil all over the road, and finally were not able to comply with increasingly tight emission standards. You could easily design a 2 or 3 cylinder engine based on the Detroit design, but you would have to address the issues which killed it.

This is the direct string of evidence over the years; The Earhart Project

 

 

So, if Earhart crashed near enough to Nikumaroro to be able to swim to the island - why hasn't TIGAR or someone else found her aircraft?Can't be that hard - after all, David Mearns found HMAS Sydney, and the Kormoran as well - and they were down 2000 metres. The Earhart aircraft wreckage can't be that far away from the island.

I'll let TIGHAR tell you about the history of the search for the aircraft; they've done a massive amount of work; TIGHAR

 

It matter none really, there's so much confusion, conjecture and water under the bridge etc that unless her credit card is found with her PIN next to it anything and everything is open to fake news!

There have been plenty of theories without any evidence.99% surety will do me.

 

The worst of this is that the bones were found in 1940, three years after she disappeared.

 

 

And more articles.Investigators Found Evidence That Amelia Earhart May Have Survived—And Her Style Was a Major Clue]

This one was published in June 2015. The Items were found on Mili Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The people who found the aircraft parts were expecting Lockheed to be able to identify they came from an Electra, but there has been no word.

 

Amelia Earhart 'captured by the Japanese and the U.S. government KNEW' | Daily Mail Online

The photo was taken at Jaluit Harbour in the Marshall Islands. As the story says, a Japanese researcher matched the photo to one published in 1935 - before they disappeared.The bones were found on Nikumaroro - a long way from the Marshall Islands, and ties in with other research by Tighar.

 

 

OK, so she owns them, I wonder what she will do with them.

She's not responding to messages

And - where is RAA in all of this - Not a word of support or its a problem with the operation ever! Why? anyone else and they would have phone calls from the office and paperwork????

RAA is being wise to stay out of it; check the legislation.

Bones discovered on a Pacific island belong to Amelia Earhart, a new forensic analysis shows

The legislation is very clear and straightforward.

 

There are thousands of ways people have tried to get around it over the years. The thousands of ways don't work, so its pointless coming up with versions which have been tried before.

 

This one drew national attention; doesn't surprise me at all that it will be investigated.

 

 

A touch and go where you don't slow down much after touchdown doesn't use much more runway than a normal take off. IF you come to a halt and then start a take off roll, from 1/2 way down you are breaking a fairly fundamental rule for Light aircraft. There are times with takeoffs and landings going wrong, that you just have to cut the power and wear where you end up (ride it out). It that point you are probably going to crash, to some extent. Your decision is what speed you do it at. If you are airborne you must by definition be at above stall speed and you must have control of the plane. If still on the ground you should be below stall speed ( Mostly).. You can't always do a go round safely. In some circumstances it must be done early or not at all. Analyse your aerodrome and the prevailing conditions and the surroundings before you land or take off.. Nev

I don't disagree with anything you say, but it always makes me nervous when we talk about complex physical actions which included a primary course of action, tempered by a delicate touch, affected by the stage of what's happening etc. These are things where you need to be in an aircraft.

Yes! Yes it does.OHS and regulation would be so over this like a rash it would be impossible....We would have a 2 or 3 thousand dollar an hour chopper doing the same thing and deluding ourselves into believing we're a "first world" nation so everything we do must be right and correct..Last year Japan celebrated 50 years operation of their Bullet train......and they lost the war?

It's funny that you don't hear this kind of talk in MAAA regarding RC aircraft, which also have to comply with OHS, and any other regulations.A few months ago a journalist from Melbourne's Age asked me to meet a photographer for a photoshoot. When I got to the location the photographer took a wide shot with a drone.

 

When I asked him if he'd had any training, he said he'd been to NSW and been trained by MotzartMerv (a member of this forum), knew he was under the Moorabbin CTA step, and was very comfortable with his obligations.

 

Japan's bullet trains are privately financed, just like the non stop, self supporting, SCT train which runs the Melbourne-Perth route carrying containers. We could have them here if someone wants to build the track and set up the rolling stock. What is holding them back is our low population.

 

 

Great to see!

 

 

That's a pretty impressive setup - and particularly the accuracy of the arrestor hook arrangement' date=' upon return!How come 3rd world countries are beating us with technology?? Does this mean we are now below 3rd world standards?? [img']https://www.recreationalflying.com/xf_step/upload/uploads/emoticons/051_crying.gif.35a45bf53e6cfb2088b277ee5abdbb4c.gif[/img]

We're looking for untra-technical solutions, like autonomous cars.Sometimes it doesn't need painting

 

 

Bloody aeroplanes are to treesAs golf balls are to water traps.

We were talking simply about fixation with a tree.

We are both more or less saying the same thing, the difference being "qualification" vs "advisory"

 

Given that RA is based on exemptions from GA regulations, and GA requires a LAME to do repair and maintenance, someone has to decide just how far that exemption should go, and that someone is within RAA, the self-administering organisation. As a shareholder, you're better off spelling out the limits, and making sure every owner knows them.

 

Yes, there will be a difference of opinion from the pilot who is looking to avoid the high hourly rates of qualified labour, and that's best hammered out by discussion.

 

 

As I see it, a small STOL aircraft could do the same thing with a much greater payload?

No reason why not, although RC Aircraft have a power to weight ratio many times that of a conventional piloted aircraft, and full power will pull you out of just about anything.I notice the drone take-off is full power, steep angle, and the landing is a dump, removing the risk of breakage with semi-skilled pilots, wind gusts etc.....but it works.

 

 

So why doesn't RAA deliver the MPC currently delivered by SAAA online then RAA would be on the same regulatory basis as VH experimental?And why is it that so many people in the aviation caper seek third party validation for their actions? I ould wander down to the marina, buy a boat, get all my mates over to go for a cruise (some would say I would be very lonely) capsize the thing, drown everybody and there would not probably even be a coroners hearing. Why? Because seafarers don't ask permission from any body else. There are rules of the sea as there are day VFR rules and we know that if everybody knows the rules and plays by them the chance of any one causing someone else grief is miniscule.

At the present time, Victoria is considering what actions can be taken to reduce the high number of cases where boats run out of fuel/break down/disintegrate/get lost, resulting in many expensive Helicopter/Police Boat Squad/Coastguard rescues, so something could burst on to the scene any time.The reason we don't have similar schemes to boats is probably just history, the way we always did it, and turf wars within the DIRD, which, by the way covers flying, boating, and motor vehicles.

 

I like the motor vehicle system which recognises the low incidence of mechanical failures in fatalities, by auditing the condition of all motor vehicles when they are sold (Victoria - some other States have a more onerous system). Boats could finish up with something similar at any time. Aircraft have that additional factor, in that they don't just roll to a stop, and the forced landing history is not that good, so we will probably have to show some additional performance standard.

 

The benchmark RAA has set to date can be seen from this link: Accident and defect summaries - RAAus

 

This link just shows recent incidents, which I mentioned earlier, but if you click on the historic data you can go back years.

 

That's the history you have to argue from, and to me it indicates some hands on training is required to do things like plug changes (correct torque etc), setting carburettor float levels, adjusting carburettors, checking and adjusting control linkages. This doesn't have to be extensive, but it establishes boundaries of skills, above which you take the aircraft to a qualified technician. If members were involved in those discussions, and RAA management accepted the result, you would get an equitable outcome.

 

 

Should be taught as a subject in HF.

 

 

No cookies | NT News