turboplanner

I think it was a posit; what it relates to is less clear.

yes, thanks Bob.

Steve, I don't think we disagree..at least not too much. There is all the difference in the world between entering unbroken low overcast and a nice cumulus based at 4000ft and maybe one km in diameter. To lump these events together is just stupid and untrue.Oversimplifying a complex world doesn't help to ensure safety. There was a tragic double fatality not far from here when a Technam lost its wings after entering low cloud, the pilot apparently lost control.

I reckon that among other things, this accident was caused by excessive regulation and stupid lies. If the pilot had not been prevented from experiencing a bit of cloud flying under safe circumstances, he would still be alive.

If you read the reports on the example you gave, you'll find that the area forecast was for severe turbulence; the aircraft may not have even been in cloud when the wings were ripped off.

What we have available to student and certified/licensed pilots is a series of safe steps:

(a) training explanations, warnings, previous cases, suggested examples and a very clear regulation which provides enough distance for a pilot to make a U turn with clear visibility all the way round*

(b) In GA, a couple of hours under the hood to experience spatial loss, and KNOW why not to enter VMC. (Nothing to stop an RA student pilot doing the couple of hours at a GA school.)

© Nothing to stop an RA or GA student/pilot from doing an hour or two with an IFR rated Instructor in VMC conditions, which includes the key flight planning differences.**

I assume in your earlier post when you were referring to a recommendation to flying into Cu in a glider on your first cross country, you meant with an IFR rated instructor, not solo.

The reason for the training under the hood, is that your training aircraft may not be rated for IFR, and more importantly, your Instructor may not be rated for IFR., so he could get into as much trouble as you.

I also understand where Motz is coming from, and I know you kept your examples to Cu, but both fail the test of IFR Flight planning and rules; there's no way you know whether a Dash 8 or another Cu player isn't flying through the same lump of cloud.

Also, it doesn't necessarily take 178 seconds; I recall my instructor, about to train me on spiral dives and incipient spins, asking me to set up a turn at 60 degrees bank, and than "Well since we're in a spiral dive alreadyt, we'll try that one first!" - and that was in clear air!

* in simple, straighforward meteorological conditions; where fog or low cloud is closing in behind you, the situation may not be so simple; usually at that point the reason you are there is that you failed to obtain/understand the Airservices aviation weather report (as against Elders/willyweather etc.), and shouldn't be in the area. I set up a thread a few years ago on this, and there has been some good input, but no real solution to identifying those more complex weather patterns.

** In this case, the instructor is showing you how Commercial Pilots routinely, and safely, fly in IMC conditions, what the aircraft equiment needs to be, and how important flight planning is to ensure you don't hit radio towers, mountains, other aircraft in IMC, and the process of being able to let down safely to the point when you have visual flight conditions.

Did it go on to say what the government and people of PNG were doing to preserve these million dollar aircraft?

This all dates back to the "User pays" decision made by a previous Federal Government, which signed 99 year leases rather naively with developers, particularly at Bankstown and Moorabbin.

What has resulted is that the delicate balance between operating cost and income deteriorated, aviation people left those airports.

The developers looked to Commercial and Industrial rents, and that has set up a mix which squeezed out the small operators.

In Melbourne they migrated to the surrounding airfields outside the urban area, and tjose airfields appear to be economical, with one or two really thriving.

With less aviation income, the developers seem to have pushed commercial/industrial to the absolute safety limits of the airfields in terms of proximity.

Costco have built a huge warehouse almost directly off the end of 04 at Moorabbin; the upside of that is if you have an EFATO it's a good roof to go for because the heavy beams are a long way apart, and the cross beams will buckle enough to give you a soft landing.

With Commercial/Industrial at it's footprint limit, the next move is to screw more rent out of the aviation lessees, and so the circle goes round.

We are close to the point where we will never have a Van Nuys situation in Australia at these two locations.

Not quite true, since the technical manual states "...a minimum of three stage inspections must be carried out by an RAAus L1 (approved by the Technical Manager), L2 or L4". The key point being the Technical Manager needs to approve an L1 to be able to do stage inspections not just any L1, and, the criteria for the Technical Manager to approve an L1 to do a stage inspection has not been defined!

tk58 SAAA do not require stage inspections they are only reccommenfded, RAAus have made them mandatory and to be done by L2/L4 thus adding cost and redtape to fix what problem?I do recommend having others look over your work as most would do, but it should be encouraged not forced upon us!

The RAA in prescribing them to be mandatory is responsible (a) for what they prescribed and (b) is responsible for supervising a safe outcome - so if it doesn't happen and something fails, the builder can be sued, but RAA is likely to be right there beside him as a co-defendant, and with a higher level of liability because they are, or ought to be fully skilled.

Hard to believe this happened, although a pattern is definitely forming of isolationism.

Going to CASA before going to the members is not consulation, it's positioning - positioning members to follow a path which has already been laid out by a minority of people.

turbs gave you informative for this one because I personally know what you have written about ltl fords is fact been there done itget driving lessons I was told

others read and digest it neil

There are a few stinger applications around - car carriers are one and they are usually managed one driver/one truck, so the driver can build his reactive experience.

It's effectively a stinger pivot at the towing vehicle, extreme stinger pivot at the caravan, and probably a trailer with wheels close to the centre of load - unstable to the point of trying to twist, pitch and yaw itself apart.

Any hitches would need to be well over normal capacity.

If the last trailer A frame went under the rear of the caravan to a hitch just behind thecaravan axle, and the trailer axles are set back for correct down-force (and there was enough clearance under the caravan), the combination would be reasonably stable.

Multiple small dog trailers work well on farms, and are often found on road maintainers plant.

Stinger pivots (hitch or turntable behind the axle) are best suited to dedicated stinger drivers, because the corrective reaction required when the towing vehicle gewts out of line is reversed.

That's why it's a lot more relaxing to driver a semi trailer than a car and caravan.

With the turntable ahead of the rear axle, when the towing vehicle accelerates, part of the moment force goes on to the rear axle, increasing traction, but the rear moment leg reduces the chances of hopping or the front axle losing traction.

In unextected hard cornering, the G force on the Centre of gravity of the pivot load in pushing sideways between the axle, gives it neutral or slight understeer handling - like a car, so it's instinctive to tighten up the steering wheel to correct the outward path of the towing vehicle, and there's less movement at the rear end to start a pendulum action with the trailer.

In a stinger situation, with unexpected hard cornering, the G force of the pivot load is levering from behind the rear axle in a cantilever, so the sideways force is greater than the load and acts to force the steer axle tighter into the corner in an oversteer action, so corrective steering action has top be to turn the steering wheel towards the outside of the corner - a very unnatural action for someone who hasn't towed trailers, or who has always driven semis with conventional turntable positions.

A few years ago there were a number of Ford LTL fatalities on the Pacific Highway at night. The typical accident involved the Ford crossing the centreline and hitting an oncoming vehicle. The owner operators were trying to sue Ford for faulty trucks.

I did an analysis and found the owner operators had been buying standard wheelbase prime movers, and then fitting long, US style, Sleeper Cabs instead of the normal sleepers Ford had set the wheelbase for.

Nobody had done any weight distribution calculations, just placed the turntables behind the non standard sleeper cabs.

So instead of the turntables having a lead of maybe 150 mm ahead of the tandem centreline, they were about 300 mm behind the centreline.

Not only did that lift weight off an already light front axle, but the handling characteristics shifted from conventional (steer into the corner) to stinger (steer out of the corner).

What was happening was the drivers were dozing off, the truck would drift across the road, and when they woke up they would instinctively pull the wheel to the left.

Let's just let the CASA people do their job without this pointless and unsupportable conspiracy theory.

TP, questions asked, questions asked in the post. Not assertions of fact!!

Where did the advice come from for the Jabiru issue, when the statistics used were quite false and misleading??

If you are referring to the years of statistics produced by RAA and published in their magazine, you might have a problem backing up that statement.

If you are referring to the investigation by Scott Climie and Klaus Schwerdtfeger from CASA, onsite at RAA, you might have a problem backing up that statement.

If you are referring to direct reports to CASA, they would not normally be available to the public.

If you are referring to a last minute unedited report which included several blatant mistakes such as flat tyres and fuel exhaustions, that report was produced by RAA

If you are referring to some limited ATSB data, that can be taken on its merits.

2.

Down the line "advisers" of course. And who would have been the principle one??, the ex-ceo of RAAUS.

3.

What influence did he yield can be asked, together with, why was he so hard on Jabiru??

I haven't seen any information to say that Lee Ungermann made any decision for CSSO.

4.

Well Keith, the Jabiru issue starts and finishes at Jonathon Aleck. He signed the Jabiru Instrument and he, at the time, was in charge of all things light aviation - Gliders, Experimental, RAAus etcAnd Aleck did not get the relieving gig to replace Skidmore when he backed his bag and left #casa.

In large organisations, the head of department, or legal counsel ususally makes a ritual signature, and his only involvement may have been to check the decision making process for legality.

Insinuating that he was deeply involved in the Jabiru Instrument and as a result lost out as Mark Skidmore's replacement is laughable.

The old Instrument is now old news and there has been a review at which any new facts could have been presented to decide the current Instrument, so this sort of innuendo is just mischievous, and belongs on another site.

UITA, you might like to actually go out and get some facts before shooting off.

The PPL under the hood training is enough to teach you that you can't fly by the seat of your pants without visual reference to a horizon, whether that be in cloud, fog, or low over an expanse of water.

That should be introduced to RA.

What is missing is training in IDENTIFYING when you are approaching the point of being socked in by cloud, or sucked in to thinking you can creep along just under the ceiling for a few more miles.

We now have a simpler regulation requiring a minimum forward vision distance, and the visual recognition of that distance should be a part of training in GA amd RA and doesn't require waiting for the necessary weather conditions.

There was a photo posted recently of an aircraft out of VFR conditions, and that pilot would not have been there if he had been trained to visualise the distance (or we hope he would have).

ignorance is no excuse?hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I just shooda known, hey?

This adds a new dimension: NTC - National Transport Commission

Luckily for them, there is one profession which is immune from liability. Yes, you guessed it, its the legal profession.There you can be, losing everything because of an incompetent lawyer, or there you can be getting murdered by a deranged maniac allowed to run free by a negligent judge. But guess what? They are immune.

You are right. We are not a business in the normal sense. The pilot's are the shareholders. WE are not the customers Some people ARE resistant to change but that's like saying the sun will rise tomorrow. Pilot's manage aeroplanes, or they crash. The manager may say we can't afford to fix that engine this week, so the manager decides whether you don't fly or you fly with a crook engine, if your aim is to fly, and YOU should decide HOW.The accountant or a finance committee can create a policy confounding situation of conflict that directly affects the operation. OK it's their job to warn of a money crisis but not to run the show in a manner where the essence of the organisation doesn't continue, in a clearly recognisable form.

THAT management "team" is there to do what WE WANT and progress in the direction we tell them to go, or we have a problem of identity, and relevance, looming potentially. IF it's not tomorrow, it will be the next day metaphorically speaking. Nev

Welcome to GA....

If you keep your head down and your nose clean you can do your ting and stay out of trouble for decades.

If you look at the discusssions on this site and then deduct from those discussions the people who will always seek to water down the discussion, no matter what the subject, on the grounds that "they know best, that's what we elected them for, why don't you stand as a director" etc. there are very very few of the 9,000+ members who will attempt a logical strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threat analysis, let alone even read or understand the document.

So I would not suggest there will be a lot of people leaving in droves to take up other activities.

What is more likely is that if they didn't understand the manual in the first place, and there are no local volunteers or representatives to ignore the meetings where these people get most of their understanding of rules and policies, then they'll just ignore it.

That will just bounce back on the organization, and so the situation will go round and road.

This is not just limited to RA, it's spread through most activities within our communities.

Therefore you have to address the weakness, which is the process of communication, and the will to communicate.

A member who posts a lot is just ....... a member who posts a lot.

There is no relationship between umber of postings and skill levels, so I don't think a ranking level other than volume based is a good idea.

The person who I consider to have the most oustanding knowledge of recreational flying, safety, management, training and mentoring, and who has more likes than messages is way down the message count. (and I'm not going to embarrass him).

Giving someone a ranking of squadron leader, just because he/she has achieved x number of posts is disrespectful to the work that our air force members have to do to achieve their rankings.

We had it before and it added a nasty element to the forums where negative comments were often made about a person's rank vs their argument; we haven't been having those arguments in recent times.

You could have Activity level 1,2,3,4,5 etc. but what does that really tell you about a person?

No, I'm not qualified to make the call.

You've made a good point about the chemical situation.

In a current discussion there are often lapses of a couple of weeks or more, then the discussion re-ignites.

I understand if there's a technical reason for cutting back from 21 days to 14 days on new posts, but a lot of threads would die and become effectively lost unless the user can remember key words to search for.

Well, I guess if salt and tomato sauce are going to knock out the entire Eco System of the sewerage system, our guts are about stuffed.

And here is the core of the problem - IT'S A TRENCH! - look where you are going, stop playing Pokemon, get the earphones out of your ears and pay attention to what you are doing. Haysheds and post drivers/hole diggers are dangerous - pay attention when using them! This country and it's legal system has to stop shifting the blame from the person who made the mistake of falling in the trench to the person who, apparently, made a "mistake" by not covering a trench.

Did the person who changed the safe condition to unsafe (there was no trench to fall into before) owe a duty of care to anyone passing? I'd say yes.

Was the duty of care breached by not providing a guard rail or cover or filling the trench back in? I'd say yes.

I'm just talking generally here, and can't get into analysis over whether the person who fell in was playing Pokemon, or had the earphones in; there is such a thing as contributory negligence, and a court may well apportion blame, and the plaintiff has the job of proving the defendant was negligent.

As for "pay attention when using them"; specific operating procedures are needed rather than just a motherhood statement.

When will people realise that EVERYTHING IN LIFE IS A RISK!!! Stop trying to reduce risk to zero, there will always be people who cannot recognise, or choose to ignore, risk and society should not have to protect these people (at huge cost). People will always make mistakes, have accidents, be stupid etc. Society cannot afford to protect these people 100%

You're aiming the spotlight on the people who are injured/killed.

When you look at the cases, some are lost by the victims, indicating they were at fault, some are lost by the defendant, which might be a company, or an employer, or an individual, but the vast majority are settled out of court, indicating there may have been some blame on each side.

As far as houses costing double, and the end of the world coming, I've seen two examples recently which show how simple compliance can be.

1. A Telstra guy showed up to do some work on a Telstra pit on out property. From a rack in his van, he pulled a yellow tubular frame, unfolded it, and the pit was guarded on four side in a matter of 30 seconds.

2. At the supermarket someone dropped a bottle on the floor which released a liquid. An employee walked up with two packs of salt, broke them open and covered the spill, result: situation secured in a fraction of the time when someone would walk to the store and bring out a mop and "wet floor" signs.

This case hasn't gone to court yet.

No Cookies | Herald Sun

Investigation: AO-2013-136 - Helicopter winching accident involving Bell Helicopter Co. 412EP, VH-VAS, 19 km south-south-east of Mansfield, Victoria on 31 August 2013

Lawsuit over fatal Ambulance Victoria helicopter accident