Manwell

Ian asked for brutal honesty. I gave it to him. Guilty as charged. If we genuinely want to do and be better, we wouldn't shoot the messenger. Do I get a special avatar or something to go with the title? Something like the Tassie Devil cartoon guy would be nice.

Since you asked, I don't want you to do anything Ian. To be brutally honest, it doesn't bother me whether this site fails or succeeds, that's your concern. Regarding Facebook, not many users like dealing with the devil, but there ain't many other viable options available, and it's really only as bad or good as users allow it to be. One thing it doesn't do is stifle intelligent, informed, cutting edge debate, and that's good. It superficially fills a huge need for social contact that's missing in society today, and that's an opportunity you can tap into as well. The key, if you ask me, is personal contact... BTW, if you think honourable intentions ensure wild success, you're dreaming. Don't aim for success either, it's way oversold. Aim for something simple and worthwhile. To me, it seems like you have to make a clear choice about what you want to achieve. Come up with a guiding principle that directs your purpose for the site. e.g. To enable people with an interest in aviation to connect and share their knowledge and experience for everyone's benefit. That's just an example though. It's gotta be what you want the site to be, then all you have to do is make it be that. Simple, but not easy. Regardless of what anyone says, it has to be your choice because it's what suits you. If it happens to suit us as well, then that's a bonus.

Sure, but when he makes it public, and pushes it on others, then it does. I'd agree with you about him not saving QANTAS too. His job is to destroy it, and since it wasn't built in a day, much like Rome, it takes a while to trash.

Have to agree with you there turbo! Especially if they're on the receiving or extorting end of Govt largesse. Just judging by a person's attitude to Govt, it's pretty easy to tell which side they're on, isn't it?

turbo, you can assume whatever you like about me, but all you have to do is ask and I'd tell you the answer. I've had enough experience with the people who make up Governments to know exactly what I'm talking about. For example, I know enough to know that they wouldn't be averse to funding social media shills to promote the Govt line and keep us tax slaves in line.

Thanks turbo, I am happy. Happy that I no longer live in a fantasy world of my own making. Govt only exists by creating the illusion that only they can fix the problems that they actually created in the first place, and once enough of us get that through our thick skulls, we really do have a chance to live free of delusion and the many associated dramas that come along with flawed thinking. As Ronald Reagan famously said, "Government isn't the solution, it's the problem."

turbo, if you really believe Joyce has helped QANTAS, you simply don't understand anything about human nature long term. It may have been Eddington who was first cast to destroy a great airline, if so, he certainly started the ball rolling by merging Australian into QANTAS to sweeten it up for sale. It was then handed to Joyce to continue what's known in economics as the "creative destruction" of a great company with a perfect safety record, and a solid culture. If Qantas is making money, it's due to it's sound fiscal management, long term relationships and past record, but those only last so long. Joyce is slowly killing it with kindness, and his recent "marriage" is a clue to how he's doing it.

If the man from Govt says I'm here to help you, you know you're about to be screwed. I'll give some examples that is a reason to abandon a fantastic opportunity offered by Govt. Just one should do. It's offered by Govt.

Well, I'll be damned. You mean people don't know how to do that economically yet? I guess it would be a bit disruptive to the oil and Govt illusion. It's not rocket science, ya know. It's submarine science ...

Considering every possible engine design and fuel source, and since we mostly have ICE's already, the best fuel source would have to be water. Most bang for buck by far, and zero emissions. Hydrogen/Oxygen.

I don't get your point Space. What "school education", and how would they learn how to fly if they didn't spend anything on practical lessons?

You're absolutely right Space. Without all the bureaucracy, we would have learned how to fly a damn sight better than we do now. Yes, it is like riding a bicycle, and it really should be that simple.

Here it is Wirraway. This post refers to the title, How to Fly. Your reply describes how to get a license and maybe even a career driving aircraft around the sky, not how to fly. Don't let that discourage you though. Have another shot.

Thanks for the info gents. I can see if you have "great big airbrakes", carrying excess speed wouldn't be a problem. In slippery powered aircraft though, carrying an extra few knots for mum and kids ends up putting pilots in the danger zone of low and slow for longer, which increases the risk of an untidy arrival, rather than reducing it. The listed approach speed already has a safety factor built in, and the more conservative pilots become, the more likely they'll end up coming unstuck. I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but think about it like this - if you try to insure yourself against accidents by taking the easy way too much, you'll never develop the skills needed in a real emergency and won't be able to handle it when the inevitable happens. This was illustrated in James Reason's Swiss Cheese model of accident causation, where there were two slices of Swiss Cheese with holes in them, and all that needed to happen was for one of the holes in each piece to line up for an accident to result. It was also contained in the old adage about pilots starting their career with 2 cups - one empty, and the other full. The full cup was filled with luck, and the empty one was for experience. The trick is to fill the cup of experience before the cup of luck runs out, and that doesn't happen if you avoid improving skills. There was another old saying about the superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations requiring the use of his superior skills, and that's true too!

Don't you see 150% of stall speed while trying to land as a potential problem too Bruce?

Any problem has a simple solution Nev, and then experts and authorities jump on the bandwagon. If there is a persistent problem in any system, the last place you'd look is where the cause is found. Using a building analogy, if walls or ceiling start cracking, we know it's not the walls or ceiling that are the problem, and the same is true with every other persistent problem. Where we're looking for answers isn't where the answers are, they're usually much deeper in the foundations that have been laid so long ago they're forgotten. In this context, the whole problem stems from a poor appreciation of aircraft manoeuvrability in the transition to stall and below. The first corrective action is to give pilots sufficient exposure to flight at stall speeds that they instinctively "know" when an aircraft is mushing, and how it responds to more back stick, more power, not enough rudder, or too much aileron. This is initially done at altitude until proficiency is gained, then over the runway as low as possible without touching. Eventually the aircraft does touch down even if it's intentionally held off, and this gives pilots a feel for the ground while looking outside. Those problems with coffin corner and absolute ceiling could easily be experienced in the aircraft without risking aircraft as long as the pilots are disciplined. Of course, insurance and bloody do-gooders would spoil that if we allow them to dictate terms, and that would take real guts to resist.

Right, people still stall without knowing their weight, G, or stall speed Nev, but they don't need to know any of those. Elevator position is one part of the puzzle that enables a pilot to "know" when they're about to stall, but it's not the only one. The others include high pressure on the bum, followed by a loss of pressure, wind noise and control feel. THE ONLY WAY for a pilot to become attuned to the various factors is through experiencing them, and it's not that hard, or risky to do so provided it's done methodically.

It does regularly fail aro, and there are good reasons why it does. In simple terms, all accidents are subconsciously caused, or allowed to happen by the pilot. Nothing external to the individual can change those factors, but QANTAS's example demonstrates that a culture can be constructed that can eliminate accidents. The most important factor is always missing in any of our previous attempts, and that is ensuring what we're doing is right. We don't really get to decide what's right either, do we, since CASA dictate the syllabus and fill it with so much extraneous rubbish that instructors don't have the time or inclination to prove the validity of the things they teach. As Mark Twain famously said, "It ain't what we don't know that gets us into trouble, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." You're right about commercial and military aviation relying more on rules and procedures to ensure safety, and they are safest, but it is at a great cost. I've been in a multi-crew operation, and it wasn't healthy, despite it being safe.

You're correct aro. I jumped in without thinking properly. It is a maximum, not a minimum. However, the idea of adopting a minimum manoeuvre speed is still focusing pilots on looking inside at a dial instead of knowing when the wings is close to stall, or knowing how to fly it at, or under stall speed. You're right, I didn't watch the video, but did you read my whole post?

There is already a minimum manouvering speed - Va, but it's not marked on the ASI, and the idea of expecting pilots to look inside to determine if they're close to stalling is unwittingly making it more likely they will stall. As Nev says, when you're lighter in your seat, stall speed has reduced markedly - in fact you can't stall at zero G since there is no load required of the wing at all. The key is to "know" when you're about to stall, not to be reliant on something to tell you what you should already "know". The irony is that it's not that difficult either, or more risky, it just utilises all our senses in unison, rather than only eyesight.

To answer any question properly, it's necessary to consider things in the broader context. The NBN has monopolised the internet again in Australia after Telstra lost it when other telcos set up their own networks, whether they were on copper, fibre, wireless, or satellite. In context, they forced an "upgrade" to internet infrastructure that all ISP's had to use, whether they like it or not. While the cost isn't prohibitive just yet, any fool can see that when you have no other competitors, the monopoly provider gets fat and lazy, which is exactly why Telstra's monopoly was decimated years ago, but maybe most of you weren't around then. Next, the cost was slated by Telstra to be around less than 20 billion, then NBN got the job instead at around 30 Billion, which eventually blew out to 60 Billion, and yet there are people who don't see any problem with that. As the Oils song went, "Short memory - must have a.... Short memory.... "

That's typical bureaucratic obfuscation that means we could tell you, but then you'd know we're up to no good too early. After the scam is complete and the perpetrators have left the scene of the crime, then we'll be told when it's too late to do anything. This is definitely dodgy, but it's small change compared to the big scams Feral and State Govt ministers are pulling. The NBN is a good example. $60 Billion, and do you see any real benefit?

How does anyone "fix" a drought? Through Geo-engineering perhaps?

That began long ago Downunder. They weren't joking when they said you don't have to be crazy to work here, but it helps... :)

That's more like it fly, as it happens I come from out west too, and have lived in Sydney and near Melbourne. Small World. Where are the cow cockies from out west?