aro

Why? It seems like it would just pollute the forum with non-aviation topics, and drive away aviation users. There's already too many non-aviation arguments here already.

The engine was probably the most mature part!

You don't see e.g. removing the history of the Tuskegee Airmen, women pilots etc. from government websites as a symptom of a problem? Whatever your opinions of previous governments, this one is in a totally different category.

Maurice Blackburn saying that's what they're doing might be a clue.

We don't, although there may be some truth to the idea that CASA wants someone else to blame rather than them. Which is fine, until insurance companies decide they don't want to be CASA's patsy.

The whole point is that if you remove ANY link in the chain the accident wouldn't happen. But the question is whether RAAus failed, not whether there was something else that would have stopped it. Overconfident pilots are not exactly unheard of.

I assume you are familiar with the idea that accident's don't have a single cause, they are a chain? The chain here was: 1) he was overconfident 2) he was given a license without the required training 3) the weather was bad 4) he look off into bad weather #2 is the direct responsibility of RAAus. Worse, #2 is supposed to mitigate #1 and reduce the chance of #4. Bad weather happens - i can't be changed.

Mr 32,000 posts! At least this thread is (was) still on topic

This is nonsense. An ASIC card won't let you on to "do maintenance". You need company ID etc. The ASIC card is for the secure area of the airport, and it failed completely.

I have an ASIC, it doesn't mean I can walk up to a Jetstar aircraft, flash the ASIC and get on. He didn't have a boarding pass or company credentials - that was what stopped him, not the ASIC. The ASIC is supposed to stop unauthorized people from accessing the secure area. It obviously failed spectacularly here. Even then it only works if someone is denied the ASIC - there's no evidence that an ASIC would have been rejected if he had applied. Claiming this is an ASIC success is desperation/delusion.

Great example. I could show you several places where people park their trucks near their homes, the neighbors hate it but it doesn't mean they need to get council approval for a truck park.

Big difference between building an airstrip and landing your aircraft on your property. Kind of like parking a car in your backyard vs building a carpark.

Totally dependent on engine design. Look at modern engine design and rpm vs older engines and the comparative efficiency and lifespan.

Did you learn about best angle of climb, best rate of climb and best glide in your training? All I said was higher speed aircraft often have trouble meeting the 5200 rpm minimum at best angle/rate of climb speeds. You are arguing with that but somehow saying you don't need to fly at those speeds? Yes, "subject to terrain clearance" is the important bit. There have been many accidents that might not have happened if the pilot had flown the correct speed for best performance. The quoted performance figures (takeoff distance, landing distance, rate of climb) are null and void if you don't fly the specified speeds. Flying small aircraft requires accuracy, when you care about performance.

Maintaining rpm above 5200 by adjusting attitude/angle of attack is not climbing at best angle or best rate airspeed. Faeta best rate seems to be 59 knots (the POH isn't completely clear). 5200 rpm at 59 knots and 120 knots at 5500 is double the speed for only a 6% increase in rpm. Pretty good, if true.