The fun is gone for me

[SDQDI]

:freaked:Couldn't be any worse than flying a j3 with a similar sized person to myself sitting in the front, got a lot of practice landing while staring at the back of his head and relying on peripheral views each side.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It would be nice to see the real stats about the "speed kills" issue, I suspect they would be a lot lower than they make out, as far as mobile phones go it wouldn't surprise me if they were a major cause of distraction, but, I suspect that it's worse since it was made illegal, inasmuch as they drive worse when they try to hide it than they do if they just do it openly. I would also love to know just how many they've killed by forcing them to drive slowly. Regardless of rest, people become distracted and complacent when they are not stimulated.

Speed kills seems to originated in the horse era where riding a horse flat out at night on the way home from the pub could bring that on.

 

We haven't killed a driver in speedway in Victoria in nearly 50 years, and no one's asking them to slow down.

 

Speed often features in police reports because a driver who failed to give way will usually argue that he allowed enough distance so the car must have been speeding.

 

With a few exceptions, such as the 18-24 age group where some have not been made aware of the handling of their cars and the unsuitability of extreme speeds without safety barriers etc, and driving substantially above the speed limit thereby creating a differential speed which others aren't tuned to react to, the hard evidence shows very little evidence that speed itself causes crashes.

 

Most of the professionals I know think that way; some still bring out the greater impact/more damage argument, but that doesn't apply if you don't hit anything, so making sure of that is a higher priority.

 

The current discussion behind the scenes is about Reverting to the Mean (RTM).

 

On any road, drivers will over time find a safe speed where very few accidents occur. On a 100 km/hr road this might be 95 to 105 km/hr, if left alone without enforcement a 10 km/hr differential

 

When academics start meddling with speed, say bringing the speed limit down to 90, there is an initial compliance, and then RTM takes back over, so now you have a speed band of 85 km/hr to 105 km/hr - now twice the differential at 20 km/hr.

 

The current emotional screaming match between road safety people is that there is a chance that reducing the speed limit actually costs lives.

 

It's a little early for it all to play out yet, but in Victoria we are about to lose our 90 and 70 km/hr limits after people complained about having "too many limits", and being caught out by speed cameras.

 

The rest of what you are saying is also on the money.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Texting is the worst talking is still bad but texting is suicidal. Speeding makes accidents worse but isn't very often the main cause.I've posted this before but ill repeat it if my memory serves me correctly. We had a talk given to us by one of the police in the Crash investigation unit and he listed the main cause of accidents as

 

1. Inattention (Mobile phones are a part of this but also includes other distractions)

 

2.fatigue

 

3. alcohol and drugs

 

4 and 5 are mechanical and speeding my memory is getting a bit foggy as to which one is which

That order sounds about right.

 

When you think about it, in accidents you are responsible for you're going to die when your car slams into something solid, and you'll do that best if you simply didn't see the hazard.

 

So, if you're distracted on your phone your brain focus is off the eyes.

 

If you go to sleep, there's no vision

 

If you're overcome by alcohol and drugs, natural caution is gone and focus is gone

 

Oddly enough mechanical failure is so rare that annual inspections really cannot be justified

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

:freaked:Couldn't be any worse than flying a j3 with a similar sized person to myself sitting in the front, got a lot of practice landing while staring at the back of his head and relying on peripheral views each side.

True - but you do have eyes in the front that can warn you if you're flying towards an obstacle. Landing an aircraft without flaps used to assume you'd be able to see because you'd be flying it sideways.

 

 

[SDQDI]

True - but you do have eyes in the front that can warn you if you're flying towards an obstacle. Landing an aircraft without flaps used to assume you'd be able to see because you'd be flying it sideways.

Funny you should mention that because I always new when to start rounding out or flaring because you could see and hear the great intake of breath of the aforementioned person.

 

 

[facthunter]

At least with the tandem seat the narrow fuselage gives you a lot more view at the sides. You can probably judge the wheel height better from the back, but it seems a bit counter intuitive sitting behind someone. Nev

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Do you really think the ex GA pilot would have been flying a Thruster?

HEY!!!!

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

I have no problem with planned maintenance, in fact it's already mandatory, I just want to be allowed to do it myself, as I've gone to the trouble of educating myself on such matters. The noises I've heard about it having to be a third party, are what I find a concern.

Look, M6, surely you realise that if you take personal responsibility for your person, you're doing a lawer out of a case? Shame on you!!!

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

If the pilot's field of view over the nose is such that he cannot see objects in his flight path when on an obstacle-clearance climb (i.e. climb at minimum airspeed), that says something pretty serious about the basic design on the aircraft.

yes, it's got a big nose...

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Daffyd,Bit harsh mate ... Have you not experienced an obstacle clearance speed takeoff in any of C180, 182, 185, 206. Your field of view is very limited and you have to be particularly vigilant. Are you suggesting that Cessna's design in this case is poor?

I was always taught during my GA training to lower the nose occasionally on any climb out and look side to side for other aircraft all due to limited viz on climb out in the single engine C series. But of course you cannot lower the nose on the initial obstacle clearance climb out which incidentally is only 62 knots in a C180, 182 at MTOW.

Yes, Cessnas have big noses. Get a Thruster TODAY!!!

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

It would be nice to see the real stats about the "speed kills" issue, I suspect they would be a lot lower than they make out, as far as mobile phones go it wouldn't surprise me if they were a major cause of distraction, but, I suspect that it's worse since it was made illegal, inasmuch as they drive worse when they try to hide it than they do if they just do it openly. I would also love to know just how many they've killed by forcing them to drive slowly. Regardless of rest, people become distracted and complacent when they are not stimulated.

"Kinetic Energy Kills" just doesn't have the same ring... "Stop the Speed!" has a truly prime ministerial ring to it; "stop the excess kinetic energy"... too many syllables...

 

 

[Teckair]

Quite aside from the GA infiltration we, the ultralight flyers, wanted to fly higher and we wanted to cross roads, there was always going to be a penalty to pay for those extra freedoms because it brought us into contact with the general public. In fact it wasn't much of a penalty at that stage, that was when 95.10 Issue 2 came out IIRC.

OK this is the way I remember it.

When I started flying, in about 1986 I think, I thought we were allowed to go to 500 ft and there was no restriction on crossing roads 500 ft was a bit low but that was a bit rubbery, whats a few hundred ft between friends? but it really was not that bad in those type of planes. Then we could go to 5000 ft and all was pretty OK and most of the ultralighters were happy with that and we had no real problems like we have now.

 

Then we started to get ex GA pilots who no longer could pass their medicals these guys generally were not happy with what we had and wanted to go higher faster and heavier, as they would being ex GA. Still things were fairly OK up to about 2006 but we were getting more and more GA like aircraft, Sting, Sabre, Lightwing Speed, Spitfire, Lightning and numerous others.

 

Since then there has been problems, the Sting crash, Lightwing in the drink near Sydney, the infamous Ferris wheel incident and so on with the threat of litigation. We have had C 150s, Piper Colts and V8 Spitfires inappropriately registered as ultralights. I have given up worrying about it all but I see little point in pretending these things have not happened and the AUF was not hi-jacked.

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

No, not confused, I understand that there can be a difference, between design MTOW and what the category may allow. The original post was questioning, why a particular design was was allowed a certain weight, but then was still safe 50 kg over if fitted with floats. Just a legality.

I know a bit about this! The standard "improves" the safety of a less-thoroughly-designed aeroplane, by setting requirements that aim at keeping the speed low enough that flutter won't be an issue, landing energy won't be anything like a Beech Baron in a thunderstorm at night, and a few other considerations. Now, sticking b-y great floats on an otherwise sleek Thruster reduces the cruise & top speeds - making it less likely to flutter - and gives a longer effective undercarriage stroke, reducing mean landing decelleration.

SO - A Thruster with an extra 50kg (assuming the lift truss can handle it) and floats, SHOULD be slower enough that the rough air penetration speed is reduced less than the cruising speed is reduced, flutter is a non-event, and lands like fairy fluff (which they do anyway . Be a test pilot, it's exciting.

 

PS the two-seat thruster lift truss was tested to 7.2G @ 400kg without yield, so it's one that could handle an extra 50kg, if all the paperwork were lined up.

 

The T-500's big weakness is that a PT-6 just pushes it too fast...

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

OK this is the way I remember it.When I started flying, in about 1986 I think, I thought we were allowed to go to 500 ft and there was no restriction on crossing roads 500 ft was a bit low but that was a bit rubbery, whats a few hundred ft between friends? but it really was not that bad in those type of planes. Then we could go to 5000 ft and all was pretty OK and most of the ultralighters were happy with that and we had no real problems like we have now.

 

Then we started to get ex GA pilots who no longer could pass their medicals these guys generally were not happy with what we had and wanted to go higher faster and heavier, as they would being ex GA. Still things were fairly OK up to about 2006 but we were getting more and more GA like aircraft, Sting, Sabre, Lightwing Speed, Spitfire, Lightning and numerous others.

 

Since then there has been problems, the Sting crash, Lightwing in the drink near Sydney, the infamous Ferris wheel incident and so on with the threat of litigation. We have had C 150s, Piper Colts and V8 Spitfires inappropriately registered as ultralights. I have given up worrying about it all but I see little point in pretending these things have not happened and the AUF was not hi-jacked.

Shakespear had it right - in pursuit of universal amity, let's kill all the lawer. Once that's done, I'll point out that the F-16 is a "lightweight" fighter, which makes a FIAT G-91 or a Folland Gnat ultralight...

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Bob you are truly a pioneer. The first time I have seen the words "sleek" and "Thruster" in the one sentence!

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Bob you are truly a pioneer. The first time I have seen the words "sleek" and "Thruster" in the one sentence!

It takes training, and years of practice...

 

 

[David Isaac]

Yes, I am. The field of view out of a high wing Cessna is like sitting in a letterbox, looking out the slot. OK, I've been spoiled by flying the Seabird Seeker, but the reality is that the top of the instrument panel coaming in the Cessna line is much higher than it needs to be; not sure why they did that, maybe to give it an "airliner" feel (in the DC 6 era). That's a "fashion" - quite a lot of aircraft layouts have "stylist" features that really do not make sense. It was even worse when the things had radial engines - at least straight ahead. The situation can be improved considerably by Fowler flaps, used at a "takeoff" setting, but it's dire with zero flap in an obstacle-clearance climb.

Yep ... well Cessnas do have fowler flaps and the takeoff setting is 20 degrees with the 180, 182, 185, 206 and the climb is impressive with only one or two up, certainly cant see over the nose, just hope the donk doesn't suddenly stop on the initial climb, can be slow as 58knts with only two up... LOL.

As long as there is no Ferris Wheel in the splay you should be OK, mind you the big Cs could out climb the Ferris Wheel ....

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Yep ... well Cessnas do have fowler flaps and the takeoff setting is 20 degrees with the 180, 182, 185, 206 and the climb is impressive with only one or two up, certainly cant see over the nose, just hope the donk doesn't suddenly stop on the initial climb, can be slow as 58knts with only two up... LOL.As long as there is no Ferris Wheel in the splay you should be OK, mind you the big Cs could out climb the Ferris Wheel ....

Look you, that nose-high rubbish doesn't happen with a 172B... the O-300 is a safety feature from that, er, viewpoint. One steers around Ferris wheels...

 

 

[David Isaac]

LOL ... Ah ... the old slab back as we call them with the lopey old 0-300, the 6 cylinder dinosaur ... chug a lug ... i think i can ... i think i can. Much smoother than the 4 cylinder though ( I prefer sixes). Definitely around the Ferris Wheel, pretty much static takeoff performance

 

 

[turboplanner]

Can you shorties have a look at the splay area marked on the wheel, the place where he hit, and the photo of the grey wheel against the overcast sky, and offer opinions on:

 

1. Did he hit the wheeel in the splay area?

 

2. Was the photo taken on the day of the crash, because the wheel is almost invisible?

 

3. In a situation where you expected to touch down at Point A but inexplicably were blown along to point B without noticing the cause, you realised there wasn't enough braking area, then after all the times the thing pointed its nose at the sky, this time it climbed out flat and you had to start dodging trees, is there a chance with all that workload and shock, your mind might be focused to such a degree that the proverbial Double Decker Bus would be invisible for a few moments?

 

(He wasn't to know he had a tailwind, and the forecast was gusting up to 10 knots on the tail.

 

 

[facthunter]

The point you make about concentrating and seeing little else is valid. It is a well known phenomenon, recently shown in the ball throwing with invisible gorilla CASA promo.

 

I thought the obstacle was well within the "splay" in any representation I viewed.

 

The "normal" weaving technique during a prolonged climb is mainly for avoiding other aircraft. You wouldn't do it in these circumstances.

 

Flying a plane at very low speed after a missed approach with a possible adverse wind gradient would occupy the mind. Nev

 

 

[Guernsey]

Bob you are truly a pioneer. The first time I have seen the words "sleek" and "Thruster" in the one sentence!

I was called sleek when in the thruster.....5ft 9ins and 70 kilos.

 

Alan.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Fatalities per 100,000 motor vehiclesAustralia - 8

China - 36

 

I'm staying here thanks

 

 

I'm not wrong, these are official figures which a number of countries share, and governments can drill down right to the individual event which caused each fatality.

Going back to your original nonsense, allow me to offer you an example ...

 

Lets say tomorrow Australia says no one has to wear seat belts any longer and 99% of the population say stuff it, I'm not wearing it but you choose to continue to wear yours. Now no other rule has changed and everyone continues to drive as they were.

 

Now we will use the stick that says wearing seatbelts reduces fatalities by 50% (I think that's close to the truth anyway) so now your ...

 

"Fatalities per 100,000 motor vehicles = Australia - 8"

 

might read like;

 

"Fatalities per 100,000 motor vehicles = Australia - 16"

 

 

... has the risk to you personally doubled? No it hasn't. In fact the risk to you hasn't increased at all, possibly even lowered your risk as more idiots remove themselves from the roads.

 

In China 99% of drivers do not wear seatbelts, 50% of vehicles on the road are motorcycles or bicycles who don't wear helmets, many roads in China are dangerous mountain roads, and include millions travel by bus every year on those dangerous roads that fall over occasionally.

 

Your niave statistical statements take none of this into account and I would doubt that the Australian equivalent road user in China is of any greater risk here and I would claim actually safer in suburban areas.

 

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

 

 

[M61A1]

"Kinetic Energy Kills" just doesn't have the same ring... "Stop the Speed!" has a truly prime ministerial ring to it; "stop the excess kinetic energy"... too many syllables...

Yes, I did some basic sum one day, came up with some number that's suggested I would need to be just over 200kph on my old Gixxer, to have kinetic energy as a commodore doing 100.

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Yes, I did some basic sum one day, came up with some number that's suggested I would need to be just over 200kph on my old Gixxer, to have kinetic energy as a commodore doing 100.

...so don't ride over 200kph, easy peasy... just ease off with the right wrist, thaaat's right... the SV650 doesn't have that pronlem, at least...