turboplanner

There's a bikies club ( yes, bikies, not motorcyclists) that does a run past my place every Sunday morning - about 30 mostly Harleys, and most of those with shotgun pipes etc. Yes, they create a deep rumble, that lasts for about two minutes.. But - and as a long-time motorcyclist - the thing that drove me to consider taking a gun out, was the couple of kids on the place about 500 metres away with a moto-cross training track (not an official one, just a track on a 10-hectare block) with no mufflers on their MX'ers, going around and around and around and around for 8 - 10 hours a day in summer, with the typical spasmodic throttle wrenching from fully closed to WFO every 10 seconds. I've lived under the Sydney flight path (near Rozelle) for several years and I'd take that over the bloody MX-ers every day.

Motor Cycle Noise is controlled by ADR 83/00; most bikes fit into the LC category.

https://infrastructure.gov.au/roads/motor/design/files/ADR_Applicability_Summary-L-Group.pdf

ADR 83/00

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 83/00 - External Noise) 2005

By my quick check, an LC class motor cycle is limited, in Annex 3 para 3.1 6.2.2.1.4 (engine power less than 75 kW) to a drive by level of 77 dB(A).

That’s a huge reduction from the original standard of 95 dB (A) of 20 years ago.

95 measured from the roadside diminishes to about 55 at the front windows of a suburban home, and at that level was considered to allow normal watching of television.

77 should not have any restrictive factor on someone inside the home with the doors and windows closed.

So it’s probable that the very loud rumbles we hear from non-specified motor cycles passing by are from non-conforming vehicles.

Oscar’s experience with Motocross bikes is similar to what I’ve found when out with the noise meter, the nuisance factor is not always directly related to the noise level recorded, and the repetitive throttle applications of these bikes do your head in.

External vehicle noise is controlled by the EPA in each State, and most have a hotline you can call. EPA will go out and investigate repeated noise from a given location, and prosecute for any breaches. This is the probably main reason police generally leave them alone; the EPA penalties are harsher.

However, the OP was asking about internal noise.

In October 2016 a National noise exposure for workplaces was adopted Australia-wide.

It is 140 dB © for jackhammers etc (not applicable to vehicles, and 85 dB(A), which is applicable to in-cab noise in vehicles.

Both limits apply at the drivers’ ears.

In-cabin noise | Logistics, Trucking & Transport News | Prime Mover Magazine

For around $100.00 you can buy yourself a noise meter and measure the noise in your aircraft, and that will give you a benchmark.

When the seat belt sign goes off, (allowing cabin service to happen) there's a great rush of people taking their seat belts off. They don't obey the same signs after landing though, where they are left on until the plane stops. Well, planes have been becoming cattle trucks of the air. Perhaps a sheep dog could be used to round them up. Nev

This is the biggest factor in the decline of GA, because it has reduced the cost so significantly.

I guess we can't have everything.

Wouldn't truck compression braking be a high level noise? Nev

Sigh, perhaps I should just make wild statements about exponential decreases in noise levels. And I have better than a passing understanding of what goes on behind the scenes in an ICE vehicle, but thank you for your condescension.

Some of the C182*s (maybe the older ones) ................... seem to have a banshee whistle to them - which i think is more pronounced than the engine noise - from the ground when they fly pastMight be the wing stuts

Same applies to a group of aircraft; the loudest noise from the loudest aircraft will be what registers.

If you are testing for a friendly attempt at minimising complaints, instruments are not much good, because often you find that the complainant is irritated by a particular frequency or sequence e.g. at a motor racing track the complaint may start as a complaint against engine noise, but when you get into the house with measuring equipment against the TV Set and ask a few questions, the complaint usually settles on the PA system and the style of the commentator.

Given the OP's question wasn't about fly by noise, but he is interested in in-cockpit noise, it would be about the same as a car with and without a muffler - which is very substantial.

..Similarly, I recently travelled to Sydney towing a large trailer and of necessity travelled a bit slower than usual. I was twice overtaken by Teslas on the highway and found that there was little to no difference in the sound experienced through my open window, between them and a couple of large saloons which passed at about the same time - it was all tyre and wind noise, not exhaust.

Certainly tyres noise, gear noise are equal.

install a turbo and you fix your noise problem, the need for a bulky exhaust and you get some free* horsepower

Example aircraft - say a Tecnam - 912 four stroke. But all of the front end engine aircraft have the same problem including GA.If you run the exhaust pipe down and behind you, say 2 thirds down the fuselage or more would the noise level reduce in the cabin. If not why not?

 

Flying for over 30 years and never really understood why we have to put up with such a high noise level in the cabin with the exhaust ending basically under our feet. Yes I understand a bit of extra weight and attachments and may not look nice - But

 

Would it also not remove the smell of the exhaust more effectively as well?

I've been reading Mike Busch who says all this hours business is dead wrong and only GA still follows such a demonstrably faulty system. The basis of the fallacy is the intuitive but wrong idea that all parts start out reliable, but then become unreliable as time passes. He says that while a small number parts are indeed like this, more parts suffer from "infant mortality" and actually become more reliable as time passes. Then there is the risk of introducing a fault by unnecessary "invasive maintenance".Busch does NOT call for neglectful maintenance, but for smarter "reliability-centered" maintenance. It was this stuff which convinced me to do better instrumentation.

I hope the Bex plane will take a Jabiru motor. The only things I know which have come out of Austria are Hitler, Schwartzenegger and Rotax engines.

He's pulling your leg Bruce.

If we just focus on engines, when considering whole of life costs, some components such as air and oil filters, and some seals and gaskets are considered as "Consumables" to be replaced at every service.

The next line are parts with a predictable life cycle, such as timing belts, bearings, sleeves, bushes, pistons, rings etc.

The next line up are such as sub-assemblies which hold the above parts, which may well improve with age and outlast the engine

Some of the last have wear surfaces, which wear predictably and can be reground and fitted with oversized parts, or sleeved back to standard size.

As an engine lives through its work life, all those cycles are repeating, and the parts and services are rejuvenating the engine.

Where you have your own workshop data coming in, you can carry out an ongoing analysis, and usually predict quite accurately the life cycle costs, and the expected life of the engine.

In some cases, the engine manufacturer has managed to design an engine life which is long enough that it's affordable to just pull the old engine out and scrap it, fitting a new one in its place. This particularly applies in the case of applications where downtime cost is high, and dollars saved in fast changeover offset the cost of the new engine.

I have not seen, on this forum, anyone mention this process; just comments about short term events and failures.

Because of the rough and ready maintenance procedures of untrained service technicians, some components which haven't been touched can last longer that others which have been distorted when levering out, or hammering and overtightening during the service process, but you can't just apply that cross the board, blackening the names of qualified service technicians.

Im hoping to get some advice about my return to GA and passing a BFR.Its been close to 15 years since ive last flown an aeroplane as PIC and i would like to know what sort of things i should be looking at to pass a BFR?

Im thinking of getting a VFR Flight Guide to get myself familiar with rules and regs again, is there anything else that i should look at?

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

If your school runs night classes, I'd recommend you go through those, because all the training will be based on current regs.

Good luck with it.

No, I'm not confusing anything with anything. I'm merely suggesting that the time taken by the ATSB to issue a report, may also be metered by a perception that what they produce should not leave them open in the slightest to criticism. Whether that be in the legal sense or the media circus. I'm not criticizing the ATSB at all, as their investigations should be as thorough as they can possibly be.

ATSB don't have to worry about this alleged media circus, and we want reports which are complete, without and lingering doubts, so what's the problem?

Is the underlying issue, that along with their dreadful TV programmes, we have also acquired the onerous litigatious ewnvironment from the USA? Draft, review, quality assurance etc., all smack of the 'covering of the backside' that has become necessary in just about any process. Not to mention that any report has also to be politically correct in order to meet the expectations of the media hounds.

It was Product Liability which Raph Nader championed, and which took off in the USA, wiping out the manufacture of some products, including some light aircraft. The Australian Government followed suit by introducing Product Liability to this Country, from memory between 1987 and 1999, but so far no one has made a claim under that legislation because the cost would involve taking it all the way to the High Court, and would be beyond the financial capacity of Australian citizens or companies. Penalties and Punitive damages awarded against a manufacturer can be in the order of $50<100 million.

There are still some people who equate "covering the backside" to duty of care, but they are different processes as these people find out when they get on the receiving end of a claim.

If you care to study Donoghue V Stevenson, which is a relatively simple case, you'll find that ATSB, generally would have little to fear from producing a report about an incident where someone else had failed in their duty of care, and killed someone.

Similarly, it's a long bow to draw, linking an ATSB report to any media report, let alone believing that they sit down for a year of two working out how they are going to word the report to meet the expectations of the media hounds; in quite a few cases, I've been following up on a crash on the ATSB site, found it months after its release, posted it here, and that's the first time the general public has ever seen it.

The main problem is that like the Coroners' reports, all avenues of inquiry must have been completed, with their associated specialist reports, beyond question, and you can't put a time limit on that without compromising the final report.

I believe the current ATSB practice of producing an interim report very quickly arose out of similar impatient pilots some decades ago. As history shows, those reports have been produced very promptly, but it's the thorough investigations we need.

The heading is "Why I stopped flying" the content is "why I stopped uploading" ????

The real issue is that Hanson, McNee and Ashby have conspired to hide a donation. So then the issue is how many, if any, other donations has Ashby taken?If Hanson loses Ashby, she's pretty much lost.

Flying high: Pauline Hanson, James Ashby and the plane

I thought the purpose of having another non-aviation site was to get the dogs arches and fruitloops over there.

You can sugar coat this issue as much as you like it will still be a joke.On one hand we hear how important the safety of aviation is in Australia and on the other incident reports that take years to complete.

The government as a group should be ashamed of the dismal performance.

 

The only way this could ever possibly improve would be to have the politicians wages indexed to the key performance indicators of the ATSB complete reports.

 

I bet we would then and only then see a major improvement in completion of reports that are supposed to improve safety for us all.

 

In my opinion not only the government of the day but previous governments sees these as a tick in the box complete or otherwise.

 

Cheers

There are just a few people who cannot come to grips with the processes involved and like to sound off.

There are many Coroners cases which take a similar time to conclude; most public liability lawsuits take years to conclude.

The chains of investigation are not always parallel, and quite often it's the evidence that gets hung up in a queue, then the result which has to be sent to another specialist gets hung up in their queue etc.

Yes Cosmick there you go how could some one twist that up some much.Now how much do you trust ATSB "OR" Is there some bureaucrat being looked after?

KP.

I'm not saying the two witnesses were mistaken on that occasion.

The sheet metal usually tells the story.

In terms of potential for business use, it would be interesting to see the list of flights she made.

She had to cover the Nation for that campaign, and there are several States where a light aircraft theoretically has the edge, in terms of trip time from leaving your motel room in the morning to attending a dinner at night.

Against that are the disadvantages when you have to move the aircraft from productive area to productive area - such as Queensland to inhabited western NSW, northern SA and WA - RPT kills that even with extended parking/checking/lounge times.

And the biggest killer is not being able to arrive at a destination, or not being able to get home due to weather.

Twins with IFR pilots offset the weather issues, but are still too slow these days.

My real question is has RAA looked at it or CASA as its low hanging fruit - IF- Pauline has done something wrong with the flying regs. Think they will now.To be honest don't give a damm.

What a waste of time the libs and labour use instead of doing anything meaningful for AUSTRALIA. They - the pollies eg libs and labour, greens etc should be classed as a criminal organisations in there own right.

More spin from #casa and Carmody -#casa still has not come to terms with actual pilot numbers and quotes over 40,000.

My last estimate, from #casa numbers gives < 20,000.

 

#atsb gave an address which does not come to terms with slowness of reports and the gross inaccuracies in them eg. Dromader, Albury, Pelair and on and on.

 

Airservices could not explain away the ADSB controversy or the loss of staff or movement of costs to the GA sector.

You can't blame "us" the consumers. Even if we do want to but quality goods it is just about impossible. Bunnings have presided over the demise of all its opposition and where I used to be able to get quality, iy is all gone now. Bunnings have discontinued some of the lines of better product they used to carry.Where can I get a decent pair of walking boots? All the old brand names are now rubbish and fall apart in 2 years because they have Polyurethane in them.

It would be more correct to say that you can blame SOME of the consumers - about 60% in my experience. These people will not look further than the ticket price, and you can see the results in the number of trash car makes coming on to the Australian market, spray guns which don't even work for the first job, washing machines with a two year life cycle, TVs the same etc.

Unfortunately, with the small Australian consumer market, a company like Bunnings can "crash" the industry, putting the higher quality suppliers below the break even point, and sending them out of business.

Products like Sidchrome tools and PBR brakes are just a memory.

PBR just reminded me of the trailer Master Cylinders that sat out in the weather for a decade or two and still worked. The last three generic branded master cylinders I bought all failed to make 12 months without either seizing or leaking.

This has created a different cost profile for us:

In some cases it works, such as buying a drill from Supercheap for less than $50.00 and throwing it away at the end of its life, buying a new one vs trying to repair a more expensive drill for $250.00.

That has created a secondary problem where a lot of repairers have gone out of business, and parts businesses no longer carry $2.00 washers, but sell you $80.00 sub assemblies instead.

Due to my choice of search parameters or the contents of the database?

Just out of interest, I tried to see if the ATSB data is consistent with the claim in the discussion paper.I went to ATSB National Aviation Occurrence Database: Detailed Data Search. I entered this search.

 

• Date range: From 04 Mar 2004 to 03 Mar 2017
   
   
  
• Location: All
   
   
  
• Occurrence Category: All
   
   
  
• Occurrence Type: All
   
   
  
• Aircraft and Airspace: Aircraft Type: Aeroplane. Operator Type: Sports Aviation - All
   
   
  
• Injury Level: Fatal
   
   
  

 

 

There were 28 results with 5 ATSB investigations. Each has a short summary in the data returned if there is an investigation or not. Most just say collided with terrain without giving a reason. Is it that the ATSB don't report reasons like incapacitation even if that information is known? Does "Sports Aviation" pick up all RA-Aus flights or am I missing lots of results here?

But we need Migrants to build our cars and white goods.