turboplanner

Yes Fh the discussion on this site is caring and analytical and the conclusions often stand up.

 

Yes Andy, the RAA work is to be commended.

 

The problem is that Police will not release their Brief to the Coroner, and the coroner has a different set of objective to those wanting to learn from an incident.

 

 

The only chance of that is if ATSB decide to investigate unfortunately

 

 

"........the Supercheap ones are not as aerodynamic"

 

The Supercheap Marketing Manager was quick to respond: "There are two reasons we pit a 25 mm fluoro butterfly handle on them; firstly because most RA operators can't see their dinner on a plate without thick glasses, and secondly their hand shake so much that they drop standard valve caps trying to screw them on, and then they can't see.....you get the picture."

 

This set off a forty page thread of indignity which included people like Harriet saying they never used caps anyway, a number of exchanges about who was going to the Old Station fly in, three people asking whether they should put sump oil in with their fuel just for fun, and finishing with a debate on what the rule was for tying down at...."

 

Never mind bull, Hatso is always picking on Queenslanders, particularly F'nQueenslanders, but Turbo went through Coughs at Christmas time and can now tell you there are no vacant caravan sites, because of all the surfers on disability pensions, one fast food outlet, run by a past winner of MKR takes over two hours to serve fish and chips, and the big banana is rotten, having never been refrigerated.

 

 

Here is the Banyule City Council Agenda for the Ordinary Meeting 13 April 2015

 

Planning Number: P1453/14 - 26 story mixed use, 443Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe.

 

The Officer's Report recommended against the proposal and it appears the Councillors agreed. The Officer Recommendation is one of the most powerful persuasion tools at VCAT, because the Officers are professionals.

 

The Officer reasons are on the Council Website under Meetings (no a very user friendly website), so the developer will usually address these reasons if he decides to appeal.

 

I wouldn't be colouring the story by suggesting what powers you think VCAT has or has not.

 

 

It's good that the Council has rejected the application.

 

The VCAT hearing will be decided on whether the application complies with the Banyule Planning Scheme.

 

If the technical issue is genuine, the best path is to get the Federal Minister to ask the Victorian Planning Minister, Richard Wynne to call it in on safety grounds. He has that power.

 

 

You draw the line so that the same event doesn't happen again, and in particular to prevent more people being killed.

 

An open discussion will often help in the grieving process at the beginning, because people are often looking for answers.

 

In many threads people waffle off the main subject matter.

 

 

If Essendon Airport management and or pilots don't like this, they have the option of writing an objection to Council, then either a Yes or no Council decision entitles them to a VCAT attendance to argue either for or against the outcome against the developer.

 

How would the unstated Council possibly know the site was a significant Navigation site, unless someone with aviation experience sends an email in to them advising the danger of allowing this development.

 

MANY inappropriate developments have succeeded because there was no opposition and the Councillors "just didn't think."

 

If you want to stop this you must contact the Council with an Objection immediately. All objections are logged for Councillors to see. You also need to contact Essendon. You may get a surprise and find they are not interested.

 

 

Just getting back to the thread's main point, it seems that those who did come in contact with CASA employees at this event had a cordial and useful experience.

 

 

.........."WE'RE ASKING THE QUESTIONS HERE! and any more from you Mickey Mouse and we'll.............."

 

 

Your fuel burn calculation, and flight plan are required to be done before takeoff and these take into account climb, cruise and descent, and you'll have the forecast wind the calcs were based on, and you'll have any diversions you made during the flight, so even if he asks you for the details and cross checks them, the two figures should be very close. The CASA guy will be smart enough to look at your logs and cut you slack on a difficult flight. In an emergency mid-air, anywhere on the trip one of the flight centre's first questions will be what is your fuel endurance, so they can give you alternative routes etc to get you out of trouble. If you do the calcs and mark the WAC, even if the aircraft is bouncing around with solid cloud fifty feet above you, you'll be in a position to give a good response.

 

 

For example, how many of us always weigh their passengers? We are required to use actual weight for W&B calculations, how do you do that if you haven't weighed the passenger? I don't think that "He didn't look too heavy" is a valid method of weighing. Also, how many could answer how they determined the CG would be within range before flight? As far as I know you need to show either calculations or a system of loading.

The answer should be everyone, since it's a mandatory Performance and Operations requirement.

 

I've never flown out of a facility that didn't have a set of scales - and even if you have an isolated hangar, it's hardly an imposition - see a current ebay cost below.

 

We don't carry enough pax to be able to use standard weights, itself a very controversial subject at the moment.

 

If you have a crash, and it's caused by dynamic overload you better hope you weighed everyone; it's your responsibility to stay withing weight.

 

Pax weight has a cumulative effect on weight and balance, either for good or bad, depending on the aircraft design, so if you get the pax weight wrong, your balance calculations have to be wrong.

 

A poster on this site told us how, in a Morgan, he had moved the position of his 15 kg tool box, and on takeoff the aircraft had got out of control. He had to fight to get back down, and that was a good lesson for all of us as an example of the weight margins we have to think of.

 

It's also mandatory to do a balance calculation before each flight, so yes, you need to be able to show how you arrived at the decision to commit to flight.

 

WDbathroom scales.pdf

 

WDbathroom scales.pdf

 

WDbathroom scales.pdf

It's best to update WAC maps from time to time as towns, cities and mountains move all the time.

It's actually so changes don't kill you - like a high tension cable strung across a valley.

They did that in Grand Canyon in the 60's, and a USAF fighter pilot experiencing the exhilaration of flying below the rim slammed into it and was killed.

 

 

Not at all. Last I heard he was still licence-less, and probably will be for life. What I meant was that JQ had not admitted to anything that would be worthy of a cancellation. No "Yep, that was me hot-dogging in a Robby" or "Looks good on youtube, dunnit?". He had always maintained his innocence, I have never read of him confessing to anything that would be grounds to cancel his licence.

You should read through the prune file; this is one of his quotes, (not necessarily the clearest, haven't got time to trawl back through the years) - "we also brought up the fact that the low flying law specifically states it applies over terrain. The judge decided that in this instance terrain actually included water."

 

 

 

 

Are you suggesting he got his licence back?

 

 

I'd encourage you to Google the CASA vs Richard Rudd, or CASA vs John Quadrio cases. Proven wrong, and in Rudd's case, apparent perjury, despite nothing wrong. As above, just because you are doing nothing wrong doesn't mean CAsA thinks the same.

I haven't checked the Rudd case, but from my memory an Administrative Tribunal upheld the CASA Quadrio decision, and he actually admitted it on Prune.

 

No one seems to be too keen to confirm on this occasion whether there were any ramp checks at this event; might spoil some great tales.

 

 

"..........Captain's epaulettes sewn on, and............."

 

 

"..........lift his tail and hit him with a tablespoon of petrol, and he'll gyrate like Elvis, then......"

 

 

"

 

"Maybe I should try some flea powder? " as he gnawed on his gnocci,

 

"Or maybe I could wear a studded collar and ......."

 

 

I couldn't think why any pilot would be concerned about a ramp check, given that he/she would normally be well equipped and planned for a long flight.

 

On the other hand I would be more nervous about an aircraft check because there is always something coming loose or a difference of opinion on what the regulation intended the specification to be.

 

 

And who does the check on the car, not the RTA nor the Highway patrol, it's done by the experts of that sports governing body.

Correct, and I've mentioned a few times that in RAA the administration buck stops with the CFI who oversaw the pilot's training. There is provision within the RAA's Incorporation structure to include a Compliance and Enforcement module, and RAA has the power to do that, but has never set it up. If they had then you would have a direct comparison, and CASA would be no more likely to go over their heads than RTA (now RMS) or the Highway Patrol.

The Sporting Shooters Association which may be running events at 50 different locations around Australia on any weekend, and I can assure you they have qualified officials on deck. I was at a centrefire range, and being new, wasn't totally sure of the procedure. When the end of firing time was called, so people could go up and check their targets, I put my rifle down, opened the breach, and walked away from the firing line like everyone else. Suddenly people were recalled back behind the line and I noticed three people looking at my rifle. I was called over and left in no possible doubt that leaving my magazine in the rifle, even though it couldn't fire, would see me in deep trouble. Needless to say I was a model participant after that. They are an Incorporated Association, they have the structure, so can RAA.

 

Also lets compare apples with apples,At a fly in we have many people all gathering for a social event etc or in the speedway comparison, a race. They do not check all the cars of the people who have come to be entertained. (Google is your friend)

The people who fly in are participants in the event, out for the same recreation and cameraderie, and it provides a good opportunity for a safety compliance check.

 

Before each season, all cars are usually thoroughly checked at a convenient location, such as the owner's home. RA pilots don't have that burden.

 

 

Its like the libs new metadata rules. It costs $400M a year to collect and the simplest encryption defeats it.

They've got a special encryption buster just for you FT; good that you are on top of it though.

 

 

......but he was distracted by a crowd around the local news stand. Strolling over, Turbo found they were all avidly reading this mornings news story about a woman in Queensland who had been charged with Beastiality. In going through her house on a drug related search police had found footage of her having sex with her dog. At the Court hearing the reporters crowded around asking pointed questions, but she told them all to go and get f$$$$$.

 

Turbo was intrigued by this, so in an empathetic mood he went and knocked on her door and asked how she got into this position. On seeing her eyes narrow he quickly amended the question to ask why she did it.

 

"He's a nice dog", she said " and when you look around Queensland what choice did I have? Particularly coming from Townsville where............"

 

 

By comparison, if you enter your car for a speedway meeting, it gets a 100% check by the machine examiner - and that can be more thorough than a roadworthy. Every other Class on the day gets check by their Machine Examiner, and that can add up to 150 cars on the day.

 

So be thankful CASA only does random checks.

 

 

I hadn't heard;it's one thing to be charged, another to be convicted

 

 

Turbo are you suggesting that adding a cert4 in training and assessment to the syllabus required to become an instructor would then allow them to instruct without direct supervision ?

You couldn't be as lucky as that. What is important is to know how this came about and why. RAA may already know.